DLS350 Posted August 22, 2021 Report Share Posted August 22, 2021 This isn’t a legal opinion bit mine. Restaurants can refuse service. See signs that say, No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service. An employer can mandate you wear certain clothes or a uniform, name badge, etc.. My job did before I retired, name badge and uniform, I worked in a hospital. Said right in the bylaws that you could be terminated if not in uniform and wearing your proper hospital issued ID. They did the same for flu shots, get a shot or wear a mask throughout flu season. They put a sticker on your ID to show you had the flu shot, no sticker and you had better have on a mask. Some employees refused both and were terminated! So my non-legal opinion is, yes the can mandate that employees get the Covid shot or be terminated, it’s one of their requirements for employment! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted August 22, 2021 Report Share Posted August 22, 2021 1 hour ago, DLS350 said: This isn’t a legal opinion bit mine. Restaurants can refuse service. See signs that say, No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service. An employer can mandate you wear certain clothes or a uniform, name badge, etc.. My job did before I retired, name badge and uniform, I worked in a hospital. Said right in the bylaws that you could be terminated if not in uniform and wearing your proper hospital issued ID. They did the same for flu shots, get a shot or wear a mask throughout flu season. They put a sticker on your ID to show you had the flu shot, no sticker and you had better have on a mask. Some employees refused both and were terminated! So my non-legal opinion is, yes the can mandate that employees get the Covid shot or be terminated, it’s one of their requirements for employment! They also have a right to operate without requiring bodily harm submission as well... only fair... Anyone requiring another ingest some unnamed and unknown chemicals should also be required to sign some "acceptence of responsibility" for any adverse effects ... and you sound so willing... only fair... PS: of course businesses shouldn't be absolutely "required" to service unvaxed, but those "rights" 👀 ... absolutely cut both ways. 👍 BTW: IMO ... not legal opinion of course 🙄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On2whls Posted August 22, 2021 Report Share Posted August 22, 2021 If deciding to require employees to vax up is new to the company rules, then I think you make that clear to anyone intending to work there, and enforce it immediately for new hires. For existing employees, I think you handle it through masking/sanitizer ion/application of social distancing tools (Zoom, Teams). If you feel strongly enough about it, maybe provide incentives, or set a “must convert by” date giving employees some time to weigh their options and consider moving on. (This period in low number of years, not days or weeks). But, with the easy availability of false vaccine cards, does it even matter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted August 22, 2021 Report Share Posted August 22, 2021 1 hour ago, On2whls said: But, with the easy availability of false vaccine cards, does it even matter? You think it doesn't matter if people are induced to break the "law" (term used loosely lol) , or at the least... risk arrest and serious jail time ...just to be able to get groceries ??? 🤔 PS: yeah no sweat 😨 BTW: you ARE correct that most people would adopt this aaattitude... ...as long as it's not me ? 🙄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cossacks Posted August 23, 2021 Report Share Posted August 23, 2021 It’s pretty clear courts are sticking with Jacobson v. Massachusetts regarding the rights of employers requiring employees to be vaccinated. I have also seen Zucht v. King cited, but Jacobson is what is the precedent and is what I beloved will stand. Brown v. Smith (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1136 and Love v State Dept. of Education (2018) 29 Cal.App5th 980 And most currently and Covid specific Bridges v Houston Methodist Hospital (S.D.) Tex., June 12, 12, 2021 l, No. CV H-22-1774) 2021 WL 2399994 I’m pretty sure @HSFBfanis a paralegal he’d know this stuff way better. But I haven’t seen him on here in a long time, hope he’s doing ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted August 23, 2021 Report Share Posted August 23, 2021 3 hours ago, Cossacks said: It’s pretty clear courts are sticking with Jacobson v. Massachusetts regarding the rights of employers requiring employees to be vaccinated. I have also seen Zucht v. King cited, but Jacobson is what is the precedent and is what I beloved will stand. Brown v. Smith (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1136 and Love v State Dept. of Education (2018) 29 Cal.App5th 980 And most currently and Covid specific Bridges v Houston Methodist Hospital (S.D.) Tex., June 12, 12, 2021 l, No. CV H-22-1774) 2021 WL 2399994 I’m pretty sure @HSFBfanis a paralegal he’d know this stuff way better. But I haven’t seen him on here in a long time, hope he’s doing ok. You Forgot...George Mason University vs. Zywicki 🤓 Professor Beats George Mason University’s Vaccine Mandate, Asserted ‘Natural Immunity’ in Lawsuit Patrick Smith/Getty Katherine Hamilton 18 Aug 2021 George Mason University (GMU) granted a professor medical exemption from its mandatory Chinese coronavirus vaccination policy on Tuesday for “natural immunity” following a lawsuit in Virginia district court. The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) filed a lawsuit on behalf of GMU law professor Todd Zywicki and accused GMU’s vaccine mandate of being unconstitutional for coercing Zywicki to receive unnecessary medical care. NCLA, which is a non-partisan, nonprofit civil rights group, also proved the efficacy of natural immunity in people who have already been infected compared to available coronavirus vaccines. GMU quickly settled before the lawsuit could go before a judge. The university first announced its vaccine policy on June 28, which requires all faculty and staff members, including those who can demonstrate natural immunity through recovery from a prior a coronavirus infection, to disclose their vaccination status as “a prerequisite for eligibility for any merit pay increases” — unless an employee can secure a religious or medical exemption. (emphasis added) “On July 22, GMU emailed the policy to students and employees and threatened disciplinary action—including termination of employment—against any who do not comply with the vaccine mandate. The university’s website describing its vaccination policy reiterated this threat,” according to NCLA. (emphasis added). Zywicki, who has taught at the university since 1998 and is one of the law school’s “most frequently cited and influential scholars,” received an “unbroken string of positive COVID-19 antibody tests on July 25, September 29, and December 16, 2020, and February 9 and May 25, 2021,” after contracting coronavirus last year, according to court documents. Zywicki’s own immunologist, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm advised him to forego a coronavirus vaccine based on his personal health and immunity status (Image: Wikipedia) Zywicki’s own immunologist, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm advised him to forego a coronavirus vaccine based on his personal health and immunity status, rendering vaccination medically unnecessary and a violation of medical ethics. “By threatening adverse professional and personal consequences, GMU’s Policy not only directly and palpably harms Professor Zywicki’s bodily autonomy and dignity, but it forces him to endure the stress and anxiety of choosing between his teaching career and his health,” the lawsuit alleged. NCLA further noted that making Zywicki take a vaccine against the expert medical advice of his immunologist deprived him of his ability to refuse unwanted medical care. “The Supreme Court has recognized that the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to privacy. A “forcible injection … into a non-consenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty,” NCLA argued. Even though GMU granted Zywicki’s medical exemption, NCLA said it is odd that the university “continues to refuse to recognize” that coronavirus vaccinations are not necessary for students and staff with naturally acquired immunity, demonstrated with antibody testing. “At times GMU officials have appeared to deny that such a thing as naturally acquired immunity exists,” NCLA said in a release. “This refusal is particularly odd, as the efficacy of the very vaccines GMU wishes to mandate are measured against levels of natural immunity acquired by those who have recovered from Covid-19.” NCLA cited multiple extensive peer-reviewed studies in its lawsuit, comparing naturally acquired and vaccine acquired immunity. The studies overwhelming concluded that natural immunity is more effective against various strains of the virus than vaccines. “New variants of COVID-19 resulting from the virus’s mutation do not escape the natural immunity developed by prior infection from the original strain of the virus,” according to the lawsuit. “In fact, vaccine immunity only targets the spike-protein of the original Wuhan variant, whereas natural immunity recognizes the full complement of SARS-CoV-2 proteins and thus provides protection against a greater array of variants.” GMU reportedly assured Zywicki he will not be subject to disciplinary action following the settlement. He will also be allowed to hold office hours and attend in-person events, provided he maintains six feet of distance. He must additionally get tested for Chinese coronavirus once per week on campus at no cost to himself. NCLA said the favorable outcome should “encourage others to fight irrational vaccine mandates elsewhere on the same bases laid out in the Zywicki complaint against GMU.” The nonprofit said it will continue to explore litigation against the university and welcomes hearing from other public-university campuses in Virginia, particularly tenured faculty “who have naturally acquired immunity backed by antibody testing and whose schools are similarly disregarding the scientific facts surrounding naturally acquired immunity.” This case is Zywicki v. Washington, No. 1:21-cv-894 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ---------------------------------- Thoughts now ??? 🤔 PS: haven't heard a thing about HSFBfan...🤷♂️... was wondering the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cossacks Posted August 23, 2021 Report Share Posted August 23, 2021 Does not look like GMU is appealing. I’m sure others will cite it as precedent and be interesting to see if it reaches the SC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted August 23, 2021 Report Share Posted August 23, 2021 2 hours ago, Cossacks said: Does not look like GMU is appealing. I’m sure others will cite it as precedent and be interesting to see if it reaches the SC. Courts will not produce, the same effect as the edicts. go to court... and you will have to show real efficacy. 🤓 PS: and nature has not lost an efficacy battle yet... 🤷♂️ BTW: For all those that follow "science"... one would be VERY hard pressed to argue against, Mother Nature's own "herd immunity". 🏆 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaximumHornetSting Posted August 23, 2021 Report Share Posted August 23, 2021 4 hours ago, Troll said: Courts will not produce, the same effect as the edicts. go to court... and you will have to show real efficacy. 🤓 PS: and nature has not lost an efficacy battle yet... 🤷♂️ BTW: For all those that follow "science"... one would be VERY hard pressed to argue against, Mother Nature's own "herd immunity". 🏆 It seems more like mother nature is thinning the herd right now... And some of yall LOL... Are helping her out... So sad it's stupid... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted August 24, 2021 Report Share Posted August 24, 2021 3 hours ago, TheMaximumHornetSting said: It seems more like mother nature is thinning the herd right now... Actually that never stops... 3 hours ago, TheMaximumHornetSting said: And some of yall LOL... Are helping her out... And Natural is STILL better than artificially induced... for Immunity 3 hours ago, TheMaximumHornetSting said: I'm So sad it's stupid... 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat_Scratch Posted August 24, 2021 Report Share Posted August 24, 2021 Your brother should see his lawyer with the question, "If the company can fire me for not taking the shot, can you (lawyer) write a contract that says if I contract an illness or death caused by the shot your company will be responsible for my family's well being?". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.6fe336e5b4d7ff146f007a76d53d7c15.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.